Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Stark said:
Someone claiming to be Michael Brown's best friend (and Dorian's cousin) told a detective and an FBI agent, in the presence of his lawyer, that Wilson executed Brown while he was on his knees, hands in the air and begging for his life. Just for the hell of it, I guess. They clearly don't believe him, as they keep on reminding him that he's under oath and that lying is illegal.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371027-interview-witness-35.html

Does anybody know if this guy has been in the media telling lies?
Click to expand...

I recall hearing that story.

It just doesn't fit with the evidence, though.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Idiot family attorney on CNN now "The process is broken because it didn't agree with our version of the facts".

ETA: Wow, how did this guy pass the bar? He can barely string two sentences together.
Click to expand...
He's watching dollar bills walking away from him, how could he not be disappointed? The city of Ferguson may not be so quick to throw money at him as Zimmerman's condo association was.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The charges were not presented as a "smorgasbord", though. Which is what I believe you claimed. They were presented and explained properly.
Click to expand...

I did. A "smorgasbord" - a number of charges - choose the ones you want.

That doesn't mean they were not explained properly. Again, my point was this case was not done the usual way - typically the DA would tell the jury what he (the state) believes the proper charge to be.
 
WildCat said:
You haven't shown that any of this is unusual in Missouri. Wilson testified because he chose to testify, he didn't have to.

IMHO this is the proper role for a GJ, why bother with them at all if the prosecution just presents a case with cherry-picked evidence?
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
Perhaps because typically a case such as this, with so much evidence in Wilson's favor, in normal circumstances the DA would not have even bothered with the GJ because there was simply no evidence with which to charge?

That's what made this case unusual, it was presented to the GJ in a futile attempt to placate the lynch mob.
Click to expand...


:eye-poppi
 
WildCat said:
I've noticed we still have a distinct lack of Brown supporters in this thread who want to discuss the evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I count as a Brown supporter. I think Wilson was probably guilty of bad police procedure but I suspected he may not have been guilty of a crime and I suspected that there wouldn't be enough evidence for a grand jury to indict him even if he was guilty of a crime.

Nothing I've read has changed my opinion about any of that. Should it?

I suspect Wilson is lying about his attempts at politeness with Brown and Johnson when he first encounters them based on his misrepresentations of his interaction with Arman shown in the video linked to above. But I don't think any uncorroborated thing that Johnson says about the interaction has any credibility either. He was engaged in criminal activity near the time of the interaction and that almost completely discounts his credibility in my opinion.

I have been disappointed at the celebration in this thread. A young man was killed and his family was devastated. That seems like a sad enough situation that it might have dimmed the enthusiasm for cartoons and jokes. There's a good chance that more considered actions by Wilson would not have led to a situation where he felt it necessary to shoot Brown. US policemen kill a lot of people these days and video of the shooting of the mentally off individual linked to earlier in this thread suggests to me that something is wrong about the training of US policemen with regard to the use of deadly force.

The rioting in Ferguson will probably be devastating for citizens for years to come. Communities that experience these kind of riots continue to suffer the consequences for generations. The community needed to take a strong stand against lawlessness and support efforts to prevent the looting and burning. The actions are not in protest of excessive police force they are an insult to the family of Brown and his supporters. Where was the so called black leadership when courage was required? Their lack of action provides further evidence that they are cowardly exploiters.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...
That would only confuse you if through some sort of reading comprehension issue you thought those aspects were the same.

To clarify: that the case went to a GJ at all was unusual, not the manner in which it was presented.
 
Upchurch said:
Their purpose was to review the evidence to decide a point of law within a given framework and under certain rules, not to determine, if possible, what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are asking for an account of what actually happened..

Where would you expect to find a more comprehensive and factual account outside of the evidence presented to the grand Jury?

Or, is your professed " .... interest in what actually happened. ", just rhetorical wishful thinking?
 
Checkmite said:
Saw the released medical photos. Officer Wilson's fractured eye socket and bleeding ear are particularly nasty. Certainly not images for the squeamish.
Click to expand...

Not sure which picture you are referring to. I have only seen ones like this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...n-wilson-after-michael-brown-shooting-n255486

You mean this picture? There was a picture circulated by some news media which was a hoax.
http://www.thatsnonsense.com/view.php?id=1877
The man in the image on the other hand is not Darren Wilson at all, rather a Moto rider named Jim McNeil who sustained the injuries in a crash in 2006 where he seriously injured his cheek, forehead, nose and eye socket. McNeil has since passed away in another crash in 2011.
Click to expand...

This is the source.
http://etnies.com/blog/2006/10/10/jim-mcneil-face-plants-ouch/?utm_source=Tradedoubler

The pictures of Wilson I have seen are just red superficial injuries to the right cheek.
 
WildCat said:
That would only confuse you if through some sort of reading comprehension issue you thought those aspects were the same.

To clarify: that the case went to a GJ at all was unusual, not the manner in which it was presented.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, that the case went at all was unusual, and is probably the basis for its unusual manner of presentation.
 
WildCat said:
Can you paraphrase what they said, in your own words?
Click to expand...

Basically what I've already said but ok. Usually prosecutors determine that they have enough evidence to prosecute a case and then go to a grand jury to an indictment. This is basically a rubber stamp as prosecutors control the process. Very rarely do prosecutors not get indictments that they are seeking.

In this case, they decided to give everything to the grand jury and let them decide. Highly unusual as it makes an indictment much less likely. But that's point. He knew he couldn't win a trial but felt he had to bring it to a grand jury and so they gave them everything, knowing it would reduce the chances of there being an indictment that they didn't want.

Now you're making even more unsupported statements. Provide some evidence that this GJ decided the way they did not because of careful examination of the evidence presented to them, but to rubber-stamp what the DA wanted.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a rubber stamp. The grand jury did, I'm sure, examine the evidence. But the prosecutor surely knew that the evidence favored no-bill. There is a reason he seemed like a vindicated defense attorney when he was taking questions after the decision.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Basically what I've already said but ok. Usually prosecutors determine that they have enough evidence to prosecute the case and then they go to a grand jury to an indictment. This is basically a rubber stamp as prosecutors control the process. Very rarely do prosecutors not get indictments that the are seeking.

In this case, they decided to give everything to the grand jury and let them decide. Highly unusual as it makes an indictment much less likely. But that's point. He knew he couldn't win a trial but felt he had to bring it to a grand jury and so they gave them everything, knowing it would reduce the chances of there being an indictment that they didn't want.



I didn't say it was a rubber stamp. The grand jury did, I'm sure, examine the evidence. But the prosecutor surely knew that the evidence favored no-bill. There is a reason he seemed like a vindicated defense attorney when he was taking questions after the decision.
Click to expand...

If you read the GJ docs, I think you will find that it actually did not make an indictment less likely.
 
Olowkow said:
Trial by forum? Trial by jury would have been better. That is the issue.

I think Wilson should have been better trained or in better shape to defend himself from a shoplifter/robber resisting arrest. I suspect cops get punched every day by felons who don't want to get caught, but they don't always shoot their attackers. He was losing a fist fight with a much bigger man, and he had many options, such as raising the window, hitting the accelerator and waiting for backup, before even considering using a firearm. Pulling his sidearm in the confines of a car in this situation was a foolish move. This cop, it seems to me, was not sufficiently prepared physically or psychologically for the job.
Click to expand...




The grand jury has essentially decided that there was no possibility of any crime in this case, which means they endorsed lethal force by police for detaining/capturing unarmed shoplifters who resist arrest in the future.
Click to expand...

The grand jury did not essentially decide that there was no possibility of any crime in this case. And even if it did "they endorsed lethal force by police for detaining/capturing unarmed shoplifters who resist arrest in the future" would not follow from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom